Blogs

Why "Safe Injection Sites" are the Wrong Answer to the Opioid Question

Late last week, it was reported that proponents of a proposal to open so-called "safe injection sites" — facilities where drug users would be able to shoot up in an enclosed environment supervised by medical professionals on the lookout for signs of overdose —gave a demonstration in San Francisco of what such a facility could look and feel like.

The prototype site — installed at the world-famous Glide Memorial Church — popped up less than 24 hours after the State Assembly signed off on a final round of amendments to Assembly Bill 186, a piece of legislation that would allow San Francisco to create a pilot program for "safe injection sites" through January 2022.

Police across the country are watching events unfold in Fog City because they know well that the credo, "as goes California so goes the nation" may apply here.

Other cities — Baltimore, Denver, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, and others — are talking about opening their own safe injection facilities. Such facilities already exist in places like Australia, Canada, and Portugal.

Advocates say these facilities would save lives that would otherwise be lost to overdoses and provide an avenue for addicts to get treatment and break their addiction. They argue that by providing access to meal services, showers, dental care, mental health and medical referrals, they can help guide people away from their addictions and toward more stable environments.

But not everyone in San Francisco likes the idea.

Rick Andreotti — vice president of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association — told KRON News that while he's happy the city is concerned for people's well-being, he doesn't think this is the right way to stop the drug epidemic.

"Is this the proper solution? We don't believe so," Andreotti said. "We are concerned that an increase, or influx of addicts in San Francisco, will cause an increase in petty crimes, quality of life issues and we all know that's a major issue in San Francisco."

Holes in the Plan

On paper, these sites seem like a good idea — in practice, probably not so much.

In theory, if drug users really did go to these facilities to shoot up — and there's no guarantee that they would — then they are necessarily off the streets. They would not be camped out in doorways or hiding out in bushes throughout the city, thus ending one of the worst problems facing San Francisco — the blight of drug-addled idiots infesting every corner of the city. And all those needles would theoretically disappear from the gutters.

I've been saying for years that cops should not have to be drug counselors and medical workers — jobs for which they are not sufficiently trained to be truly effective, nor did they sign up for.

Ostensibly, these sites would fix that problem.

In the event of an overdose, the police would be relieved of their obligation to come to the rescue of the victim — that task would be administered by the "supervisors" at the shoot-up site. Consequently, SFPD would no longer have to as frequently administer naloxone (Narcan) to an overdosing subject, freeing them up to engage in other policing activities.

However, there are some serious holes in the plan.

For starters, such facilities would be in direct conflict with federal law.

The Justice Department said in a statement regarding an effort in Vermont to open such facilities, "It is a crime, not only to use illicit narcotics, but to manage and maintain sites on which such drugs are used and distributed."

Under a 1986 law known as the Crack House Statute, federal law prohibits anyone from knowingly opening, maintaining or managing a "place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance."

United States Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in an interview with NPR, "I'm not aware of any valid basis for the argument that you can engage in criminal activity as long as you do it in the presence of someone with a medical license."

And because users would have to supply their own drugs, these facilities would do nothing to reduce the manufacture and sale of illegal narcotics — they would only exacerbate the problem of the illegal drug trade.

Further, one must question the willingness of drug users to actually get off the streets and consume their drugs in a "sterile" environment. We can't even get thousands of non-addicted homeless to get off the sidewalks and into a shelter — how can we realistically think we can reason with the unreasonable man or woman who insists on intentionally poisoning themselves?

Finally, it would not be incomprehensible to imagine that the cities where these facilities are operated to become havens for drug users around the country. I've lived in this town for more than two decades, and in that time I've witnessed a massive influx of drug-addicted wanderers who have somehow found their way to San Francisco — there are an estimated 22,000 intravenous drug users already here.

Opening even more permissive doors to what amount to being drug dens would only make matters worse.

The Wrong Answer

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), more than 115 people die by overdose on opioids — prescription pain relievers, heroin, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl — every day in the United States. That's roughly the equivalent of one (mostly-full) 737 airliner auguring into the earth every day.

So it's clear that something needs to be done to address the question of how we can lower the number of Americans who die with a needle in their hand.

Drug addicts need treatment, not assistance in furthering their addiction. The government and the private sector should be helping addicts shake their addiction — not giving them a "safe place" to continue destroying themselves.

These proposed safe injection sites are really just needle exchange and distribution programs on steroids — well, more accurately, on heroin.

Rather than encouraging and normalizing heroin injection, we should be examining ways to marginalize its use — and mitigating the national crisis it has created.

Author

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).

It's easy to look at the landscape of public opinion in America and come to the conclusion that the majority of people in the United States despise the police. However, the vitriolic anti-police sentiment demonstrated by a small number of the public, the press, and the political class is not an accurate reflection of how the majority of Americans feel about their law enforcement officers.

Following the murder of Corporal Ronil Singh, elected officials and law enforcement leaders across California are pointing to legislation friendly to illegal immigrants as the reason an illegal immigrant was able to murder the officer in cold blood.

Despite downward numbers of recruits seeking to join the ranks of law enforcement and increasing indications of de-policing across the country, we can—if we look hard enough—find countless bright spots for American policing in 2018.

Officer safety is obviously paramount—and should never be jeopardized by allowing a potentially dangerous subject who should be handcuffed to retain use of their hands—but weigh into your tactics the fact that communicating with a deaf subject who is handcuffed becomes significantly more difficult.

Foot patrol is the essence of community policing—officers on foot create opportunities for the public to connect with their police (and vice versa). Conversely, when officers are wrapped in two tons of metal and plastic, that opportunity for real connection is essentially lost.

Too many officers are driving themselves into their graves—turning their cars into their coffins—in single-vehicle crashes. According to ODMP, there were 34 such preventable duty deaths in a three-year span from 2016 to the present. It's impossible to know how many officers were seriously injured but survived single-vehicle crashes during that time period. Something must be done.

While empirical data doesn't exist—at least to my knowledge—on lost productivity due to injuries sustained during foot pursuits, anecdotal evidence suggests that medical leave following such activities is significant enough to give some thought to the matter.

There is certainly benefit to being current on events involving the people you consider family—your brothers and sisters across the country with whom you share a special bond—as well as the world at large. However, it's also important—and extremely beneficial—to spend some time completely disconnected from the job. This is a lesson I recently re-learned.

I've talked with officers who have lost a colleague to suicide—as well as many widows of officers who died by suicide—and just about everyone has said that the warning signs were there before tragedy struck. They just didn't put the pieces together until it was too late. Let's all do a better job of helping officers in crisis.

It's somewhat disappointing that it takes an act of evil for the pure good in people to come bubbling visibly to the surface, but when the deep-down-good does show itself, we are reminded that it's been there all along—it's just been hiding beneath the waterline.

Unbeknownst to many in the public—but well-known to pretty much all of the men and women who stand behind the thin blue line that protects them—police officers have a tremendous sense of humor. It's time to take a little break from heavy subjects and have a little fun.

I've long held the belief that a year-long civics class should be a requirement nationwide. Further, these classes should include more than just the basic structure of government. Curriculum should incorporate Constitutional Law and Supreme Court cases related to the Fourth and Eighth amendments, as well as police policies, procedures, and practices.

Very few people who get into teaching have the mental, emotional, or physical fortitude to use deadly force when under imminent threat. However, every teacher should receive some level of active shooter response training—everyone should have at least some idea of what to do in an attack.